Com. v. Palmer, J.
Com. v. Palmer, J. No. 821 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 17, 2017Background
- July 19, 2014: a fight at a Philadelphia block party; Octavious Thornton (wearing a gray tank) was beaten by a group; Malik Hairston swung a rake while trying to intervene and then gunfire erupted.
- Witnesses (Thornton, Daria Thornton, Hairston) identified the shooter as a black male in a red polo; shortly after the shooting a gray/silver car fled the scene.
- Security at Albert Einstein Hospital observed a gray vehicle arrive rapidly, strike a guardrail, and saw a revolver on the grass nearby; the vehicle’s passenger door was ajar and had blood inside.
- Surveillance showed the defendant (Jeffrey Palmer) arrive at the ER wearing a red polo, remove and discard the shirt near the guardrail, then later place it in his trunk; DNA from the shirt’s collar had a major component consistent with Palmer.
- Ballistics: a revolver recovered near the hospital contained .38 casings; copper fragments and a projectile from the Beechwood scene were forensically matched to that revolver.
- Procedural posture: Palmer was convicted by jury of first-degree murder (life without parole), attempted murder, unlawful possession of a firearm, and possession of an instrument of crime; he appealed, raising prosecutor vouching and challenges to sufficiency/weight of evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Palmer's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutor vouching during closing | Response to defense attack on officers; remarks about detectives’ experience were legitimate rebuttal and rhetorical sarcasm, not personal guarantees of credibility | Prosecutor improperly vouched for detectives and urged jurors to give them greater weight; trial court should have sustained objection and given curative instruction | Court affirmed: remarks were permissible response, not personal opinion; jury instructions and presumption of following them cured any potential prejudice |
| Sufficiency of evidence for first-degree murder | Circumstantial and forensic evidence (identification, shirt/DNA, recovered revolver, ballistic matches, eyewitnesses) established shooter and specific intent | Evidence insufficient; challenges argued generally in Rule 1925(b) but without specifying elements | Issues waived due to deficient Rule 1925(b); court nevertheless found evidence sufficient if reviewed — convictions supported |
| Weight of the evidence (multiple convictions) | Evidence (testimony, video, ballistics, DNA) coherently supported jury’s credibility choices and verdicts | Verdicts were against the weight of the evidence | Weight claims waived for lack of specificity; court held verdicts were not so contrary to evidence as to shock the conscience |
| Possession/Firearm-related offenses (unlicensed carry, PIC) | Ballistics, recovering the revolver near where defendant discarded his shirt, and certificate of non-licensure established unlawful possession and intent to use as a criminal instrument | Argued insufficiency/weight generally | Court found those convictions supported by the same forensic and testimonial evidence; claims waived or without merit |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Tedford, 960 A.2d 1 (Pa. 2008) (prosecutor may comment on witness credibility in rebuttal but not assert personal belief in witness veracity)
- Commonwealth v. Hutchinson, 25 A.3d 277 (Pa. 2011) (prosecutor may argue with vigor if remarks have a reasonable record basis)
- Commonwealth v. Reeves, 907 A.2d 1 (Pa. Super. 2006) (Rule 1925(b) bald assertions insufficient to preserve sufficiency/weight claims)
- Commonwealth v. Manley, 985 A.2d 256 (Pa. Super. 2009) (to preserve insufficiency claim, 1925(b) must specify the element(s) alleged to be unsupported)
- Commonwealth v. Baumhammers, 960 A.2d 59 (Pa. 2008) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence; circumstantial evidence may sustain conviction)
- Commonwealth v. D'Amato, 526 A.2d 300 (Pa. 1987) (context matters in assessing prejudice from closing argument)